HorrorCode wrote:well not to add more to the fire, but when i try disabling certain features in compiz, it starts crashing and gives errors coming from unity. so while were against it, its still being forced on us, i've just decided to drop back to mint 10 due to this, theres way too many bugs in 11 & unity to make any sense of it imho, the point of this distro was something clean, and elegant, correct me if im wrong, thats 10, but not 11, at least not yet.

Never disable Window Decorator. The others can be disabled fine though I recommend to keep Gnome Compatibility on.

Registered Linux User #528502Feel free to correct me if I'm trying to write in Spanish, French or German.

HORRORCODE wrote: "Well to be more specific I was simply stating that some icon sets are complete and some arent, but if you can clarify as to which exact icons you speak of, I can find one to replicate the issue. I have tons of different sets installed and theres at least 4 different variations of broken icons or incomplete sets that are common. Those normally consist of the folder icons, or hardware, but then there are what should be more common icons i.e multimedia or games."

I had to go looking for it, but I found a couple--sort-of--one is an "of course" type of thing. The "Felicia" set uses the ugly "Gnome Desktop" (one icon) and of course the "Gnome" iconset installed by default uses the ugly icons. I don't count the hardware icons because they don't bug me the way the olive-drab folders do. Only two iconsets I found with the problem, though, and I went through 13 sets. That is a huge improvement over the standard Gnome install. I'm not sure how Mint has assigned the default icons but it is definitely using a different system than Mandriva and Ubuntu. But you are correct, the problem does exist, but not to the extent that I've seen with other distros.

Dated? Looks like you are speaking in terms of dragon-fly years. I have found my perfect mate in Isadora and am not upgrading ever, i have LMDE to keep up with developments. So what happens to me after 2013, i hope that i wont end up receiving a notice saying something like "Your license has run out, please stop using version 9 immediately or you shall face the legal consequences"?

I feel strongly compelled to post in this thread.I've been using Mint 10 since it came out, it's great and perfect for me. I moved from ubuntu (which I'd been using for a couple of years) and have not looked back.It's my main and only OS on all my PC's. Linux Mint has got it right as far as I am concerned, both for general PC usage and web development. I can't fault it.

Mint 11 looks great too. The developers of this OS have made the right decision, tried out live CD's for the latest Ubuntu and Fedora, don't like either.I've always had respect for Fedora and considered moving to it when Ubuntu stopped supporting 8.10, but glad I didn't and I'm sticking to Mint.

Fedora 15 is a complete disaster, buggy (desktop graphics screw up and crash) and what is worst is that when it does work (briefly) it feels like an 'I am controlling you' type OS (mac and windows 7 come to mind !).

Linux Mint developers: if you eventually go to gnome 3, PLEASE keep support and development for gnome 2 !This OS has got the perfect balance of stability, easy of use while giving you the control and power one expects from a good open source OS.I'm very happy with Mint 10, and having looked at Mint 11 I wouldn't hesitate to load it as a main OS on a new machine.

I think we could better say: Don't force us to use the Shell or a buggy desktop. Gnome 3 classic/fall-back mode is not bad at all, it just needs some bugs to be removed before Mint could use it. (But please leave Unity and Gnome Shell in the repository for those who really want one of them, to provide freedom to the users).

Registered Linux User #528502Feel free to correct me if I'm trying to write in Spanish, French or German.

AlbertP wrote:I think we could better say: Don't force us to use the Shell or a buggy desktop. Gnome 3 classic/fall-back mode is not bad at all, it just needs some bugs to be removed before Mint could use it. (But please leave Unity and Gnome Shell in the repository for those who really want one of them, to provide freedom to the users).

+1

Despite my current attempts to get a Mint-ified Openbox desktop environment, I'd like to see Mint stick with it's current "classic" desktop look. By all means, have Unity, Gnome Shell etc available in the repositories (or even create CE's of those environments) for those who may want them but please can we keep the Main Edition with a workable desktop as it is now?

FWIW: You can take a pretty "standard" look with default / classic GNOME and turn it into something pretty wild with a little bit of conky, etc.

Of course leave Unity and Gnome Shell in the repositories but if you're staring at your desktop and complaining that it looks "dated" without learning how to make even the slightest customizations yourself, you're doing it wrong.

This is my second post. I am here because of Unity and Ubuntu's path and direction. Good work on LMDE. I found my replacement. After years of Ubuntu, Unity made it Ubuntu history. And not just due to bugs. In my view, gnome 3 isn't much better than Unity. Both are huge waste of time and don't provide what it is Linux needs. Fast, stable, and usable. Not just for casual users, but for the commercial/enterprise user as well. Ubuntu lost it on the usability and I don't see Unity being usable at any point. I don't think this looks dated at all. Looks superb and elegant with a standard install in my view.

AlbertP wrote:I think we could better say: Don't force us to use the Shell or a buggy desktop. Gnome 3 classic/fall-back mode is not bad at all, it just needs some bugs to be removed before Mint could use it. (But please leave Unity and Gnome Shell in the repository for those who really want one of them, to provide freedom to the users).

That idea I like, I mean myself I like the Gnome Shell, and have full confidence in time it will improve vastly. One thing I don't like is people blaming Gnome for lack of Compiz compatibility. Compiz could work with Gnome 3 if the Compiz folks would make the plugin, but they'd rather Gnome change how Gnome 3 works and integrates. Compiz has admitted they could make it work, but won't because they'd rather dictate the future of someone else product.

Even with classic/fall-back mode Compiz won't work, so don't think it's just the shell stopping it. And honestly I like what Gnome 3 Shell does without Compiz just fine...

If you're talking about the default look, yes I think it looks somewhat dated. But Gnome 2.x is very configurable and with themes and configuration tweaks it can look as fresh and awesome as anything else out there.

As for Gnome 3, fortunately the patches and gconf tweaks are coming fast and furious, and I believe that by the time Mint adopts Gnome 3 you will be able to change it into anything you want as well.

tdockery97 wrote:As for Gnome 3, fortunately the patches and gconf tweaks are coming fast and furious, and I believe that by the time Mint adopts Gnome 3 you will be able to change it into anything you want as well.

Yeah it's coming along nicely... One thing I noticed though, is the Shell Theme selector extension w/preview you can get has caused me to have Shell crash a bit since shells last update. I set things back up removed that extension and no issues at all.. I can still change Shell themes, I just have to use the tweak tool to do it.

Wow, I love Mint! I liked Ubuntu up until they changed the UI to Unity. It's just so useless and distracting - I can't believe they did that. I don't like Gnome 3 either - I hope the Mint Team sticks with a UI that's Gnome 2-like. Menu bars belong on the bottom like windows!!!! That's what 99% of users know.

The OP stated a preference as if it were an undeniable fact. The problem with that is that preferences may be totally correct to the holder and at the same time totally incorrect for someone else. So while I Support the OP in having a heart felt opinion I am left asking, so what?

If you don't like it, make something betterIf you can't make something better, adaptIf you can't do either ball your panties up and cry.

Complaining is like masticating most anyone can do it.However doing it in public is really hardcore.

AlbertP wrote:I think we could better say: Don't force us to use the Shell or a buggy desktop. Gnome 3 classic/fall-back mode is not bad at all, it just needs some bugs to be removed before Mint could use it. (But please leave Unity and Gnome Shell in the repository for those who really want one of them, to provide freedom to the users).

That idea I like, I mean myself I like the Gnome Shell, and have full confidence in time it will improve vastly. One thing I don't like is people blaming Gnome for lack of Compiz compatibility. Compiz could work with Gnome 3 if the Compiz folks would make the plugin, but they'd rather Gnome change how Gnome 3 works and integrates. Compiz has admitted they could make it work, but won't because they'd rather dictate the future of someone else product.

Even with classic/fall-back mode Compiz won't work, so don't think it's just the shell stopping it. And honestly I like what Gnome 3 Shell does without Compiz just fine...

Oh and

I never cared for compiz basically do to its being a resource hog anyway. If you like things to look pretty , fine, then thats ok, but I'd rather have things look and react like I expect them to. One commonality to all of this seems to be that one mans progress is another mans regression. While generally progress is good, linux code writers seem to think that the latest new piece of code absolutely has to go into the next release, regardless of how many people don't need or want it, this if fine for winblows as everyone expects a certain degree of screwed-upedness, but for linux it's always a crapshoot weather or not the latest piece of progress is going to work on all the hardware out there.

I never cared for compiz basically do to its being a resource hog anyway. If you like things to look pretty , fine, then thats ok, but I'd rather have things look and react like I expect them to. One commonality to all of this seems to be that one mans progress is another mans regression. While generally progress is good, linux code writers seem to think that the latest new piece of code absolutely has to go into the next release, regardless of how many people don't need or want it, this if fine for winblows as everyone expects a certain degree of screwed-upedness, but for linux it's always a crapshoot weather or not the latest piece of progress is going to work on all the hardware out there.[/quote]

That's part of the reason I don't mind Gnome 3 w/Gnome shell myself, it's cleaner and simpler in apperance, and when idle my PC runs are about 4-8% CPU. About half of what it was with Gnome 2 an Compiz, not to mention lower RAM usage. Beyond that it just works for me, I like the interface.

Yeah, I don't care that Mint looks dated. It's stable and solid and reliable. That's the only thing I really care about. I used my laptop for work, and watching videos. Unity is just plain terrible and distracting - Gnome 3 isn't much better - What's Mint's plan for the next release?

rhY wrote:The OP is high. Mint 11 is gorgeous. Extremely pleasant to myself and all of my user base. No complaints at all.

My ONLY complaint is that Banshee sucks. I immediately delete it for Audacious. And I have to turn off compiz, tell all my video files to defer to VLC, and change the wall paper.

Other than those small tweaks, the default install is brilliant.

I've been waiting for someone with your experience to ask this. When you say you turn off compiz, does that mean you totally disable it? Do you/can you also remove it without breaking anything? Not to pick your brain but the only real things I see it being needed for are 3d acceleration, opacity which I can give up, and screen flipping which I'm sure can be replaced by something else. The question is does removing it really benefit you in terms of ram/cpu usage, can you give a real world example? Thanks for taking the time to read this, I'm just curious today.

As for Banshee replacements, you might find Guayadeque to be rather charming, I would go with building from svn though if you really want to see it's feature set.

If Unity's only reason for existence is to look "new and improved", that's a pretty poor reason to use it. Form should always, always, always follow function. And tolerating a dysfunctional user interface for a pretty form is beyond belief. Reminds me of my niece who didn't care about which laptop her father would buy her as long as it was a pretty pink one. If I have to click more buttons, if I can't arrange everything to my liking, I might as well be using Microsoft Windoze latest creation.

There has to be an upside to a new user interface for me - something more than a "new and improved" look.

Gnome Panel, Nautilus, E17 modules and animated backgrounds (rain and fire , maybe KDE widgets..or not, Docky installed by default but easily turned off, load up on the extra wine tools to make it a more plug and play or double click experience for noobs, add gaming repositories, have a wide variety of apps but DONT go overboard with app redundancy like Ultimate edition does, add some tools for easy kernel regression if you experience overheating but keep the software bleeding edge. Include more office software, include more internet radio tools, get some of the podcast tools that puredyne has.....

Can it be done? Is there an inherent contradiction between gnome panel and nautilus and the enlightenment animated backgrounds?